3 ms·
> Whats missing is an analysis of why CentOS failed. nah, it's not missing. Red Hat bought the project and more importantly the trademark, domains etc. And it
by znpy 6y ago
> Whats missing is an analysis of why CentOS failed.
nah, it's not missing. Red Hat bought the project and more importantly the trademark, domains etc.
And it was mostly fine.
Then IBM bought Red Hat and things went south.
CentOS did not fail, CentOS was killed. It's different.
- wfuser 6y ago> Then IBM bought Red Hat and things went south. I think IBM had nothing to do with this one. People think Red Hat won't do anything like this. However, there exists a part of Red Hat which is capable of doing this. That part of Red Hat usually stays behind the scenes and comes to the fore to announce that a decision has been made and the developers (hired within Red Hat as well as the general community) who are involved in the day to day running of the projects will have no say. Plus they will throw in some confusion (like the limited use license that is in the works but not yet ready for CentOS use) around the future of the project being killed just to let the community expect something good to come out of this exercise. This is not new. They did the exact same thing to the JBoss community application server[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25358847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25358847
- playcache 6y agoIBM had nothing to do with it.
- johannes1234321 6y agoWhile I think that the decision was done before IBM took over, that statement is too much imo. IBM could have stopped the plan, if they wanted to.